Newbie 1735 - Banana Split (Game Over!)

[copper223]

Do I know they sincerely believe it?

If I do then it's either a town trait or a null trait depending on what argument they are making, if they are trying to use the "bad" argument to get a read on someone it's more likely to be a town-tell, if it's just them arguing a general point it's more of a null because they would have no incentive to argue differently as scum, if that's all they are doing then it could also be a scum trait.

Since I would not know what they sincerely believe I'd like you to further educate me on where you are going with this.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Do I know they sincerely believe it?

If I do then it's either a town trait or a null trait depending on what argument they are making, if they are trying to use the "bad" argument to get a read on someone it's more likely to be a town-tell, if it's just them arguing a general point it's more of a null because they would have no incentive to argue differently as scum, if that's all they are doing then it could also be a scum trait.

Since I would not know what they sincerely believe I'd like you to further educate me on where you are going with this.

My point is that correct/incorrect and sincere/insincere are two completely separate axis's for the sake of evaluation.

At point A I make my initial post, at point B you criticize it and me, at point C I criticize you for your attack on what I feel is a perfectly normal post. At point D you get one or two players to say they found the post weird. And at point E you say this, "If most of the new players don't mention it or agree with him it's more likely that's a genuine perspective he's had all game". But that's not remotely true because of the time sequence, things that happen after I make my argument (point D for example) don't change whether I sincerely believed my argument when I made it (point C). Things that happen after point C may be useful in evaluating the correctness of my argument (maybe point A is a weird post in the current meta) but they don't speak at all to whether I was genuine in point C which can only be evaluated with the facts on hand at the time.

[copper223]

I do not know if you were sincere at point C, the more people agree with you about point C after reading A (I don't want to give them a leading questions so I only ask them to interpret point A and see what they come up with and if it is similar to B) the less is it likely that you (average human being I know nothing about) genuinely believed I was attacking you as scum there (you could be the rare snowflake but I can't verify that without having played with you before) and vice-versa.

That's why I liked Iron's reply, he basically disagrees with B from me but ends up scum-reading you regardless, which makes his read independent and more likely to be sincere.

There is also another point in asking that question and that is seeing if/how you would re-evaluate your read given the new information provided, which is why everything after C is also relevant for reading you.

[ironstove]

Do I know they sincerely believe it?

If I do then it's either a town trait or a null trait depending on what argument they are making, if they are trying to use the "bad" argument to get a read on someone it's more likely to be a town-tell, if it's just them arguing a general point it's more of a null because they would have no incentive to argue differently as scum, if that's all they are doing then it could also be a scum trait.

Since I would not know what they sincerely believe I'd like you to further educate me on where you are going with this.

My point is that correct/incorrect and sincere/insincere are two completely separate axis's for the sake of evaluation.

At point A I make my initial post, at point B you criticize it and me, at point C I criticize you for your attack on what I feel is a perfectly normal post. At point D you get one or two players to say they found the post weird. And at point E you say this, "If most of the new players don't mention it or agree with him it's more likely that's a genuine perspective he's had all game". But that's not remotely true because of the time sequence, things that happen after I make my argument (point D for example) don't change whether I sincerely believed my argument when I made it (point C). Things that happen after point C may be useful in evaluating the correctness of my argument (maybe point A is a weird post in the current meta) but they don't speak at all to whether I was genuine in point C which can only be evaluated with the facts on hand at the time.

This post is scum.

VOTE: DDD

[Accountant]

ironstove's post make a lot more sense if you replace "scum" or "scummy" with "something I personally don't like or that doesn't suit my agenda"

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I do not know if you were sincere at point C

And apparently you have no interest in doing so.

~~

iron, we currently have a surplus of idiot in the game; if you could come back later after we've eliminated some that'd be great, thanks.

[GuyInFreezer]

VC 1.10

Accountant (2):

MaidMarian, GuiltyLion

copper223 (2):

goodmorning, Debonair Danny DiPietro

ironstove (1):

Accountant

Debonair Danny DiPietro (2):

copper223, ironstove

Not Voting:

Dragonfire, JaeReed

With

9

votes,

5

votes to lynch.

The deadline is frozen at 3 days 5 hours.

[Accountant]

Why are the not votings not voting

[ironstove]

Is drealmerz7 still in this game? I thought maid replaced him.

[copper223]

And apparently you have no interest in doing so.

And how do you come to this conclusion?

I actually thought your series of posts seemed more town than scum, at least you are critically examining my thought process and factoring in there might be something different in today's meta that may affect how others react to your posts.

I understand your argument, you made that call at C so everything after C is irrelevant to determine how genuine you were there and especially what I asked the other players about (A) is even more irrelevant.

You also made a side point that genuine /= town, to which I already replied to (it can be a proxy depending on the context).

That is wrong because a) you continued to stay in the game after C and had the opportunity to change your mind about or re-examine C at any time, which you are more likely to do if you were genuine there especially if I give you food for thought by showing you different perspectives from mine and yours and b) A and C are connected, if a third party comes along and agrees with me that A is scummy, then me asking you about it in B is legitimate so your reaction in C becomes more likely to be a fallacious appeal to the people done as a cover-up.

[copper223]

Why are the not votings not voting

Agreed, they should definitely take a stance.

[copper223]

Is drealmerz7 still in this game? I thought maid replaced him.

Maid did not unvote so the slot (which is inactive) is still voting Accountant.

[ironstove]

The mod's list of voters says drealmerz7

[copper223]

Spank GIF.

[Dragonfire]

No, I said my town-read on him had weakened, not gone completely. It hasn't changed since to be honest, but it's still a townread.

What do you think about GL's point regarding Accountant's vote on Iron?

I kinda disagree with it; I can definitely see town-Accountant putting a vote on Iron because he was being a troll, to pressure him. It's not as if he completely dropped his case on you as soon as he voted someone else, and as he said he could just vote you again whenever he wanted to. In fact, I don't really think the vote was very alignment indicative.

How does a new player disagreeing with me make my perspective less genuine? It might make me wrong, but it wouldn't mean I didn't sincerely believe my argument when I made it.

One of your points was that you have a hard time believing only I misread that post while everyone else got it (so I'm scum looking for an excuse to push you), at the time nobody else commented on it (which is not the same thing) and the less people "get it" the more it's objectively likely that your post could and was misinterpreted by town as well so the less valid does that point of view become and the more it looks like an excuse you made up to shift the argument.

Exactly. What I particularly didn't like was how he tried to push that you were opportunistic scum because only you found his post weird. I can't see why anyone wouldn't find it weird anyway; maybe the reason why only those who have replaced in since found it weird was because we read the thread objectively, whereas others were so engrossed in their arguing that they didn't really notice anything out of the ordinary.

This post is scum.

VOTE: DDD

Can you explain why that post in particular is scummy? It looks quite NAI to me.

Why are the not votings not voting

Agreed, they should definitely take a stance.

I think it's about time I voted as well. And I definitely know who I'll be voting for. I didn't like oncilla's posting and nor do I like what I've seen from DDD so far.

VOTE: DDD

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

And apparently you have no interest in doing so.

And how do you come to this conclusion?

~~
I understand your argument, you made that call at C so everything after C is irrelevant to determine how genuine you were there and especially what I asked the other players about (A) is even more irrelevant.

That is wrong because a) you continued to stay in the game after C and had the opportunity to change your mind about or re-examine C at any time, which you are more likely to do if you were genuine there especially if I give you food for thought by showing you different perspectives from mine and yours and b) A and C are connected, if a third party comes along and agrees with me that A is scummy, then me asking you about it in B is legitimate so your reaction in C becomes more likely to be a fallacious appeal to the people done as a cover-up.

#600 seems skeptical about the ability to know anyone else's beliefs. I also don't feel like you've interacted with me or anyone else in a fashion that shows any curiosity in whether I believe C or was making things up, while you certainly have looked for evidence that I was wrong about point C.

~~

And no, my point is right; everything after point C is irrelevant to whether I was genuine about point C, that's literally how time works. Things after point C could be relevant to new points, say for example point F, have I or have I not gone back and re-assed my comments in point C in light of new evidence.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Exactly. What I particularly didn't like was how he tried to push that you were opportunistic scum because only you found his post weird. I can't see why anyone wouldn't find it weird anyway; maybe the reason why only those who have replaced in since found it weird was because we read the thread objectively, whereas others were so engrossed in their arguing that they didn't really notice anything out of the ordinary.

Fuck, I hate to do this but GM, I know we didn't play together much but could you please tell these space cadets that my first post isn't weird. What horrifying reality have I entered where levity and brevity are sins.

[ironstove]

Exactly. What I particularly didn't like was how he tried to push that you were opportunistic scum because only you found his post weird. I can't see why anyone wouldn't find it weird anyway; maybe the reason why only those who have replaced in since found it weird was because we read the thread objectively, whereas others were so engrossed in their arguing that they didn't really notice anything out of the ordinary.

Fuck, I hate to do this but GM, I know we didn't play together much but could you please tell these space cadets that my first post isn't weird. What horrifying reality have I entered where levity and brevity are sins.

Scum. Again.

VOTE: DDD

[Dragonfire]

Exactly. What I particularly didn't like was how he tried to push that you were opportunistic scum because only you found his post weird. I can't see why anyone wouldn't find it weird anyway; maybe the reason why only those who have replaced in since found it weird was because we read the thread objectively, whereas others were so engrossed in their arguing that they didn't really notice anything out of the ordinary.

Fuck, I hate to do this but GM, I know we didn't play together much but could you please tell these space cadets that my first post isn't weird. What horrifying reality have I entered where levity and brevity are sins.

It wasn't weird because it was light and brief. It was weird because you legitimately justified your reads based on it (for example, in the post you say you townread drealmerz based on his joke post. I took your claimed "townread" on him to be a joke, like his original post. But then you later say that you do townread him for that reason. How was his joke at all alignment indicative?) This and a few other examples of poorly justified reads. Heck, if you'd said it wasn't serious and justified your reads elsewhere, I wouldn't be voting you now. But you not only stuck to that, but you attacked copper and called him scum when he pointed out the weirdness of your post. The nature of the attack was in itself scummy, and besides I have to take into account your predecessor's actions too, which I found rather off.

** Note: I did say in my first catch-up post that I didn't believe on judging someone (ie. DDD) by the actions of their predecessor. What I meant was that I wasn't going to immediately gut scumread DDD off the bat for things oncilla did; I would wipe the slate clean and read him for what he did say. I stand by that; if DDD had not done anything which raised red flags for me, I would just have dismissed the gut feeling on oncilla and forgotten about it. But since he has, then I am factoring in my suspicion of oncilla.

Exactly. What I particularly didn't like was how he tried to push that you were opportunistic scum because only you found his post weird. I can't see why anyone wouldn't find it weird anyway; maybe the reason why only those who have replaced in since found it weird was because we read the thread objectively, whereas others were so engrossed in their arguing that they didn't really notice anything out of the ordinary.

Fuck, I hate to do this but GM, I know we didn't play together much but could you please tell these space cadets that my first post isn't weird. What horrifying reality have I entered where levity and brevity are sins.

Scum. Again.

VOTE: DDD

Yeah, umm... you're already voting him, so you don't need to do it again.

[Accountant]

You know this DDD wagon we have going

It's terrible, please don't do it

[copper223]

#600 seems skeptical about the ability to know anyone else's beliefs. I also don't feel like you've interacted with me or anyone else in a fashion that shows any curiosity in whether I believe C or was making things up, while you certainly have looked for evidence that I was wrong about point C.

There has to be a reason why I would know or to be more precise suspect that's what you truly believe, and I wanted to know why you phrased it that way (i.e. were you going to imply I should know if you were being genuine there and if so why? Being skeptical in general was not the idea)

Well like everyone else I like to be right, but other than that I think I was pretty fair in the way I went about asking other people, I'd say the above (wrt to lack of curiosity) is far more a characteristic of your play.

And no, my point is right; everything after point C is irrelevant to whether I was genuine about point C, that's literally how time works. Things after point C could be relevant to new points, say for example point F, have I or have I not gone back and re-assed my comments in point C in light of new evidence.

The big bang happened 13.8 billion years ago, we know this by extrapolating backward after finding out that the universe is

currently

expanding and assuming that it has always followed a set of laws that have been empirically accurate in all our experiments and that can be used to correctly predict what is going to happen next.

I think the problem here is failure to consider the observer, for you it certainly is the case that anything after C was irrelevant in your decision making when you made that post, the same can't be said about me trying to verify it.

Hard to tell if you re-assessed, your main focus seems to have been showing I was either dumb or scum or both, you called the other guys that don't see it your way idiots, and now you're resorting to an appeal to authority (let's not go into the authority itself). You also did this only after that accusation started to gain traction (when you would have a motive to debate it as scum as well) so the jury is still open on this.

[copper223]

You know this DDD wagon we have going

It's terrible, please don't do it

I understand why you may think a DDD lynch would be terrible, but the wagon itself?

[ironstove]

I'm looking into my crystal ball and I see the word 'DDD' followed by 'is mafia'.

What is your interpretation of this message sent by the pagan gods?

@copper, please don't reference the big bang and applications of the scientific method in a mafia game.

[ironstove]

You know this DDD wagon we have going

It's terrible, please don't do it

With 2 people on-board, this is a very small wagon.

Sensationalized phrasing, strong-arming town to follow a set agenda, and threatening the rope to those that don't obey... This is the behavior of mafia. Possibly Italian mafia, but Russian would not surprise me either. Regardless... Mafia is mafia is mafia.

[Accountant]

Sounds like a town leader to me imo

@copper: Enough people are ambivalent/scumleaning on DDD that I'm scared they may actually follow through